Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (0457): Topic: Sport and recreation — Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, for revision and practice on this content. They are not reproduced past-paper questions, and they do not replicate the exam’s exact structure, question count or mark tariffs – examination boards hold copyright in their own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers from your board or school.

These questions use the topic Sport and recreation from the Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (0457) syllabus for examination in 2025, 2026 and 2027, Version 2 (published April 2025), section 3 topic list. Questions 1 to 8 practise the source-based skills of the Component 1 Written Exam (section 4); questions 9 and 10 practise planning for the Component 2 Individual Report and Component 3 Team Project. Knowledge of this topic is not assessed: answer from the sources, not from what you know about sport. All places, organisations, events and numbers in the sources are fictional.

Revise with the study guide and revision notes. See also the Global Perspectives hub and the 0457 checklist.

Questions

1. Read Source A.

Source A — original text written for Marlbridge. A post on a local forum by a resident of Brackenford, a fictional city in the fictional country of Talmoria. The city is bidding to host the fictional 2034 Continental Games.

“The bid plans put the main stadium on Hollin Fields, where I have walked my dog every morning for twenty years. The council says the stadium will hold 60,000 people. Nobody I know wants it. The Games are a vanity project for politicians who will have moved on long before the bills arrive. Leave our park alone.”

Identify one fact and one opinion in Source A. [2]

2. Explain why the writer of Source A holds their perspective. [3]

3. Read Source B.

Source B — original text written for Marlbridge. Extract from a leaflet published by Brackenford 2034, the fictional bid committee.

“Our Games will cost 1.5 billion talers and pay for themselves through visitors and sponsorship. Look at our neighbours: Larnholm and Pellmouth both hosted the Continental Games and both now have world-class venues. Hosting will inspire a generation of young Talmorians to get active.”

Previous host (fictional)	Cost stated in bid (billion talers)	Final cost (billion talers)
Larnholm	1.2	2.1
Pellmouth	0.9	1.4

(a) Using the table, identify the percentage by which the final cost exceeded the bid cost for each previous host. [2] (b) Evaluate how far the evidence supports the bid committee’s claim that the Games “will cost 1.5 billion talers and pay for themselves”. [6]

4. Suggest how researchers could test the claim that hosting the Continental Games will make more young people in Brackenford take part in sport. [6]

5. Read Source C.

Source C — original text written for Marlbridge. A summary from the Talmoria Active Lives Survey, run by a fictional national sports council. It surveyed 3,000 adults aged 18 and over.

“Weekly participation in sport or active recreation was 31% in the lowest-income third of households, 46% in the middle third and 63% in the highest third. Adults who did not take part could give more than one reason: 52% said lack of time, 44% said cost, 37% said there was no suitable facility nearby and 18% said a health condition or disability. Brackenford has lost 14 of its 40 public pitches to housing in ten years. Young people today would rather stare at screens than play outside.”

(a) Using Source C, explain two causes of lower participation among lower-income households. [4] (b) Explain two possible consequences of low participation in sport and recreation: one for a local community and one for the country. [4]

6. Source C states: “Young people today would rather stare at screens than play outside.” Explain why this is a generalisation and why the survey cannot support it. [3]

7. Read Source D.

Source D — original text written for Marlbridge. Two speakers at a public meeting in Brackenford.

Talmoria’s Minister for Sport: “When Larnholm hosted the Continental Games, the share of its adults playing sport every week rose from 38% to 44% within two years. Brackenford deserves the same. The Games will put our city on the world map and bring thousands of visitors. Great sporting nations host great events.”

Chair, Brackenford Community Sport Alliance: “Brackenford has lost 14 public pitches in ten years. For the 1.5 billion talers the Games will cost, we could build 300 community sports centres at 5 million each, in every neighbourhood. My son’s football club closed last year when its rent doubled. Big events come and go; people need places to play every day.”

Evaluate the arguments of the two speakers in Source D. Which argument is better supported? [12]

8. Using all four sources, evaluate these three courses of action to increase participation in sport and recreation in Brackenford, and decide which would be most effective:

• hosting the 2034 Continental Games
• protecting the remaining public pitches and building small community sports centres
• paying half the club fees for children from lower-income households.

[16]

9. You are planning an Individual Report on the topic Sport and recreation.

(a) Suggest a global research question for your report and explain why it is suitable. [3] (b) For your question, identify one local or national perspective and one global perspective, and explain the reasoning behind each. [4]

10. A team of three students finds that a public outdoor gym in their local park is hardly used. Suggest an action the team could carry out, how they could produce Evidence of Action, and how they could measure the success of their action. [6]

Answers

1. Fact: the council says the stadium will hold 60,000 people, or the stadium is planned for Hollin Fields [1]. Opinion: “The Games are a vanity project”, or “Leave our park alone” [1]. [2] Examiner insight: quote the exact words; a fact must be checkable by someone else, not just something the writer feels strongly about.

2. The writer would lose a park they have used every day for twenty years, so the plan affects them personally [1]. They believe politicians will not be accountable for the costs because they “will have moved on” [1]. Their view rests on a value: everyday local green space matters more than a one-off event or the city’s image [1]. [3] Examiner insight: “explain why” needs the reason and the value behind the view; repeating that the writer is against the Games earns nothing.

3. (a) Larnholm: 2.1 − 1.2 = 0.9 billion over, 75% [1]. Pellmouth: 1.4 − 0.9 = 0.5 billion over, about 56% [1]. [2] (b) The committee gives a precise cost, which can be checked against later spending [1]. But both previous hosts went well over budget; at the same rates, Brackenford’s 1.5 billion could become about 2.3 to 2.6 billion talers [1]. “Pay for themselves” is a prediction with no figures for visitor spending or sponsorship income [1]. “World-class venues” says nothing about whether those Games made or lost money, so the example does not support the claim [1]. The committee has a vested interest in winning support, so it may present costs as low and benefits as high [1]. Overall the evidence offers little support; the committee’s own comparison suggests the cost is likely to be higher [1]. [6] Examiner insight: use the data in the source against the claim; the strongest answers notice when a source’s own evidence undermines its conclusion.

4. Measure weekly sport participation among young people in Brackenford before the Games, to give a baseline [1]. Measure again one, three and five years after, to see whether any change lasts [1]. Compare with a similar city that is not hosting, so a national trend is not mistaken for an effect of the Games [1]. Define “take part” clearly, such as at least once a week [1]. Use a large random sample across neighbourhoods and income groups, not only club members [1]. Use club records as well as self-reported surveys, run by an independent body [1]. [6] Examiner insight: each suggestion should fix a weakness in the claim; methods with no reason attached score less.

5. (a) Cost: 44% of non-participants named cost [1], and lower-income households have less money to spend on fees, kit and travel, so cost hits them hardest [1]. Lack of nearby facilities: 37% gave this reason [1], and Brackenford has lost 14 of 40 public pitches, which hits families who cannot pay for private clubs or travel further [1]. [4] (b) Local community: fewer shared places where neighbours meet [1], so people may feel more isolated and young people have fewer safe things to do [1]. Country: less active adults are more likely to have health problems [1], which raises health-service costs and may mean more days lost from work [1]. [4] Examiner insight: use the source’s figures to show a cause matters, then add the “because” step that links it to income.

6. It makes a sweeping claim about all young people from no specific evidence [1]. The survey only asked adults aged 18 and over, so it has no data on anyone under 18 [1]. Even for adults, none of the listed barriers mentions screens [1]. [3] Examiner insight: check the claim against who was actually surveyed; a mismatch between sample and claim is an easy mark to find.

7. The real exam marks extended answers with levels of response, not point by point; these indicative points show what earns credit.

Minister: gives specific data, Larnholm rising from 38% to 44%, a rise of 6 percentage points [1]. But a rise after the Games does not prove the Games caused it; there is no comparison with places that did not host [1]. It is one city, so it may be a generalisation to expect the same in Brackenford [1]. “Thousands of visitors” is a vague prediction with no figures [1]. “Great sporting nations host great events” appeals to pride, a value rather than evidence [1]. As a government minister backing the bid, the speaker has an interest in presenting it well [1].

Alliance chair: the loss of 14 pitches is specific and matches Source C [1]. The sum is right (300 × 5 million = 1.5 billion), but assumes the whole budget would go to community sport and ignores running costs [1]. The son’s club closing is one anecdote, not a pattern [1]. The speaker leads a community sport group and may have an interest in funding for local clubs [1]. “People need places to play every day” is a reasonable value about access, supported by the facilities barrier in Source C [1].

Judgement: the chair’s argument is better supported, because its key evidence is specific and matches Source C, while the minister’s main statistic cannot show cause [1]. [12] Examiner insight: judge the quality of each argument’s evidence and reasoning, not whether you support the Games; your judgement must follow from your evaluation.

8. The real exam marks extended answers with levels of response, not point by point; these indicative points show what earns credit.

Hosting: could raise interest and bring new venues (Sources B and D) [1], but its participation evidence is one city with no comparison (Source D) [1]. Costs are likely to rise beyond 1.5 billion, given past overruns (Source B) [1]. It may remove green space such as Hollin Fields, worsening the facilities barrier (Sources A and C) [1].

Protecting pitches and building centres: tackles the facilities barrier named by 37% (Source C) [1]. It serves people daily, not for one event (Source D) [1]. Centres need staff and upkeep every year, which the 5 million figure does not include [1].

Half club fees: targets cost, named by 44%, and the 32-point gap between the lowest and highest income thirds (Source C) [1]. It is fairly cheap and quick to start [1], but only helps where clubs and pitches exist [1]. It covers children, while Source C’s data are about adults, so its effect on the gap shown is uncertain [1].

Weighing up: states criteria such as effectiveness, cost and fairness [1]. Notes that time, the largest barrier (52%), is not tackled by any of the three [1]. Sees that actions can combine, for example protected pitches plus fee support [1]. Reaches a clear judgement with a reason, for example pitches and centres, because they tackle a barrier the other actions depend on [1]. Recommends a trial with before-and-after measurement, since no source proves an outcome [1]. [16] Examiner insight: use every source and compare the actions directly; three separate descriptions with no comparison cannot reach the top level.

9. (a) For example: “Should governments spend public money on hosting international sporting events?” [1]. It divides opinion between those who value pride and tourism and those who would spend the money on everyday needs [1]. Events are awarded internationally, paid for nationally and felt locally, so all three levels of perspective apply [1]. [3] (b) Local: residents near a planned venue [1], who argue that rents, disruption and loss of green space outweigh short-term benefits [1]. Global: an international sports federation [1], which argues that events spread the sport worldwide and fund development in poorer member countries [1]. [4] Examiner insight: a suitable question has more than one defensible answer; “Is sport good for you?” has only one.

10. Action: run free guided sessions at the outdoor gym twice a week for four weeks with the park managers’ permission [1], linked to research, for example residents saying they do not know how to use the equipment [1]. Evidence of Action: photographs of the sessions and the instruction signs or leaflets the team made [1], produced during the action, since the syllabus says Evidence of Action should not include research or initial meetings [1]. Success: count users at set times for a week before and a week after the sessions [1], plus a short survey of participants on whether they returned on their own [1]. [6] Examiner insight: collect your “before” count before the action starts, or your Reflective Paper has nothing to measure success against.

Where marks are usually lost

• Using outside knowledge about real sports events instead of the sources provided.
• Accepting a bid committee’s figures without noting its vested interest or that they are predictions.
• Treating a before-and-after rise as proof, with no comparison place.
• Checking a claim about young people without noticing the survey only asked adults.
• Agreeing with a speaker instead of judging the quality of their argument.
• Assessing only one course of action, or describing actions without comparing them.
• Planning a Team Project action with no “before” data to measure against.

Next steps

• Work through the Written Exam practice questions, the Individual Report practice questions and the Team Project practice questions.
• Check your strengths and gaps with a diagnostic.
• Want help from a teacher? Book a free trial class.

Official syllabus

Cambridge IGCSE Global Perspectives (0457) syllabus for examination in 2025, 2026 and 2027, Version 2 (published April 2025), published by Cambridge International. The topic list is in section 3, the assessment objectives in section 2, and the components and command words in section 4.